Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Oct 1944

Vol. 95 No. 1

Transport (No. 2) Bill, 1944— Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 50, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

On Friday evening last I was speaking on Section 50 of this Bill, with reference to the way leaves payable to the Dublin Corporation by the Dublin United Transport Company; and the Minister was referring to an original agreement made in the days when there were only trams and which provided for a variation of the amount payable according to the mileage of track in use. It must be remembered that in those days there was no other means of transport around the city but the electric trams —of course always provided one did not want to use the out-of-date method of horse trams. The payment according to mileage was, in those days, the easiest and most equitable manner of arriving at the sum payable by the Dublin United Transport Company to the Dublin Corporation. When omnibuses came into use, the Act of 1925 fixed the sum payable by the Dublin United Transport Company to the Dublin Corporation at £14,920. There were other advantages to the Dublin Corporation: the road surface up to 18 inches on either side of the tracks was maintained by the Dublin United Transport Company, and there was also the right of the corporation to use the tramway standards to hold electric lights. These two things definitely were worth, and are worth, some cash sum to the corporation.

In sub-section (4) of this section of the Bill, it is mentioned that an arbitrator will be appointed to go into this matter, but the corporation view with a great deal of alarm the fact that the Minister has put into this sub-section (4) that the arbitrator—

"may have regard, so far as he considers equitable, to the extent to which the roadways of that road authority have ceased to be used or will cease to be used for the purpose of tramways."

That seems to mean that the arbitration may be largely decided by the amount of roadway which has ceased to be used by the trams. I would like to ask the Minister why this question of cessation of wayleaves has come about and what new factors are present now, owing to the amalgamation of two companies, that were not present a few years ago? No new form of transport, or anything like that has appeared. If it were equitable for the Dublin United Transport Company to pay the corporation—and, thereby, the citizens of Dublin—this sum of money, why should that cease with the amalgamation of the Dublin United Transport Company and the Great Southern Railways? That is what the corporation would like to know — what new factors have emerged which make it necessary to bring this matter before an arbitrator and subject that sum to the hazards of arbitration?

I would like to support Deputy Dockrell's protest in connection with this matter. Under the agreement of 1925, the corporation made a bargain with the Dublin United Transport Company, which had the effect of perpetuity so far as these wayleaves were concerned. The company at the time deemed it a very good bargain, so far as the question of monopoly was concerned and we contend now that the monopoly will be extended to Córas Iompair Éireann and, for that monopoly, the bargain should stand, or certainly its equivalent in cash compensation.

We protest very strongly against this sinister sub-section (4) to which the Deputy referred and, particularly, to the words—

"to the extent to which the roadways of that road authority have ceased to be used or will cease to be used for the purpose of tramways".

Everybody knows that the tendency is towards a diminution of the tramway system and these words are very obviously an invitation to the arbitrator to assess compensation on a diminishing quantity. In effect, the compensation which may ultimately be allotted to the corporation may be very inequitable. The Dublin Corporation has a very serious interest in this, as it has derived an income of about £14,000 a year in this way, plus the amount expended in the maintenance of the roads. That maintenance, of course, was liable to cease as the tramways themselves ceased, but nevertheless the burden of the upkeep of the streets will have to be borne in future by the corporation. Therefore, there is considerably more involved here than even the £14,000. I suggest that this particular sub-section (4) means that the Dublin Corporation and, therefore, the citizens of Dublin are getting an exceedingly raw deal.

Would the Minister, in reply, clarify the House on this point? In the 1925 agreement to which Deputy Dockrell and Deputy O'Sullivan have referred, was there a proviso that, whether the Dublin United Transport Company used the tram rails or not, their obligation to repair the roadway for a distance of 18 inches on either side of the tramline was to subsist, or had they the right under the agreement to inform the corporation that, as of a given date, they would cease to use the tramline, let us say, to Clonskeagh, and thereupon their liability to maintain that part of the roadway to Clonskeagh would cease? If there was a permanent undertaking by the company to keep the breadth of the tramline and 18 inches on either side in repair in perpetuity, it seems that a very material matter of compensation would present itself to the tribunal.

Once the tramcars ceased to run on a particular road, the only obligation on the company was to replace that road in as good a condition as before.

Under the 1925 agreement, I take it, the tramway company had the right to abandon any particular track, on giving notice that they were doing so, and could then take up the rails and restore the road, where-upon their obligation in respect of that road ceased?

But the wayleaves subsisted. They were liable in perpetuity for the wayleaves.

I know they were liable to pay rent for wayleaves but their liability in respect of the repair of roads ceased as from the date they informed the corporation that they did not intend to run trams on these particular roads.

There is a further point, to which I desire to call the attention of the Minister, namely, that a slightly different position exists concerning the roadway between Blackrock and Monkstown. Under an agreement made between the company and the old council—the Blackrock Urban Council—the tramway company, now the Dublin United Transport Company, is liable for the upkeep of the roadway between the pathways on either side, that is the whole of the roadway. In view of this section the upkeep of the roadway will in future fall on the local authority, that is the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council. In that case a much greater liability is involved because the whole of the road requires to be repaired by the borough council whereas in the city the liability extends to only 18 inches on either side. I should like to know whether the wording of this sub-section (4) will be sufficient to ensure that adequate compensation will be paid in respect of the wider extent of road, for the maintenance of which they were liable.

When Deputy Dockrell asks whether, if it were equitable that the Dublin United Transport Company should be required to pay a sum in perpetuity to the corporation by the 1925 Act, why we should seek to alter that position, he is begging the question. The Deputy appears to be under the impression, an impression shared by Deputy O'Sullivan, that this payment is made under an agreement which gave to the Dublin United Tramway Company some monopoly in the City of Dublin. That is completely erroneous. In 1925 the Dublin United Tramway Company promoted a private Bill seeking power to run omnibuses but not giving them the exclusive right to run omnibuses. The position at that time was that anybody could run omnibuses except the tramway company. Because they were operating under a statute, they could not run omnibuses although, in fact, a number of other parties were operating buses at that time. For some reason the Dublin Corporation opposed that Bill and the only agreement made between the tramway company and the corporation related to the opposition offered by the corporation to that Bill, opposition due to the political power which the corporation was able to exercise on the Committee considering the Bill.

As an arrangement designed to secure the withdrawal of the corporation's opposition, the tramway company agreed to pay wayleaves to the corporation for an indefinite period at the amount at which they were paid in that year. It is quite clear, however, that the Special Committee which considered the Bill had their own doubts as to the justice of that arrangement because they put into the Act, a private Act, words which had no relationship to its purpose and which could only be interpreted as an expression of their doubts. The Act provides that "notwithstanding any discontinuance or abandonment in whole or in part by the company of any of the existing tramway lines or equipment, the company shall continue to pay to the local authorities not less annually by way of wayleaves than the respective amounts now being paid by the company." If they merely wanted to provide for that, they would have stopped there, but they went on to add the following words—"unless and until provision to the contrary is made by the Oireachtas."

We consider it desirable that this question should now be considered. We are not proposing to ask the Oireachtas to make a decision. We regard it as necessary in any event that this annual liability which the new company will acquire from the Dublin United Transport Company should be capitalised. The determination of the capital sum to be paid to the corporation on the termination of the liability is left to an arbitrator and we say to the arbitrator that he shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and may have regard, so far as he considers it equitable, to the extent to which the roadways of that road authority have ceased to be used or will cease to be used for the purposes of tramways. I do not suppose that anybody will seriously contend that the transport organisation should continue to pay to the corporation in perpetuity charges which arose out of the tramways centuries after the tramways have ceased to exist. That, no doubt, is the contention of the corporation. If the arbitrator thinks it reasonable, we are not debarring him from fixing a capital sum on that basis, but we require him to consider that matter. We require him to consider whether it is equitable to have regard to the extent to which the roadways may cease to be used for the purposes of tramways. If he considers it is equitable to have regard to it, then compensation is fixed on that basis.

This section has nothing to do with the maintenance of roadways or with any other agreement between the Dublin United Transport Company and the corporation, as they were maintained by the Act of 1925 and they are still being maintained. They are transferred to the new company. The Dublin Corporation entered into an agreement with the Dublin United Transport Company to effect a reduction in the company's liability to maintain the roadways, corresponding to the abandonment of tramways. Similarly they entered into an agreement to reduce the amount of rates which the company had to meet. It is quite clear that the company's liabilities in the opinion of the corporation had some relation to the extent to which tram tracks were in use. The situation, however, in respect of wayleaves has been continued unchanged because of the provisions of the 1925 Act, provisions which arose, not out of any concession given in Dublin to the Dublin United Tramway Company, but out of the opposition which the corporation offered to the tramway company being permitted to get power to do something which anybody else could do, namely to run omnibuses on the Dublin streets.

The monopoly position which the company has since then acquired was achieved under another Act which had a precise purpose. So far as there is an obligation upon a transport operator to contribute to the cost of maintaining the streets, the Dublin United Tramway Company in the past paid their road tax to the Dublin Corporation and would, no doubt, be still paying road tax to the corporation if the law had not been changed requiring the tax to be paid into the Road Fund. In so far as there is an allocation out of the Road Fund to local authorities, in proportion to the amount contributed in the local authorities' areas, the corporation will still continue to receive a certain sum in respect of the amount paid by the company in road tax. I think there can be no question about the equity of the arrangement we propose here. Neither can there be any question of the desirability of getting rid of this annual liability by capitalising it. That is the main purpose of the section.

The Minister seems to be suffering from loss of memory, but I have too high an opinion of his skill as a debater, really seriously to accuse him of that. He started off as if wayleaves began in 1925.

The first legal recognition appeared in 1925.

They were in existence long before that.

They were certainly but they were paid in accordance with the mileage of tram tracks laid.

For the right to run vehicles over the corporation roads. That was further recognised in the 1925 Act although there is that sentence in that part of the Act which the Minister read out—

"unless and until provision to the contrary is made by the Oireachtas."

I do not pretend to know what the committee of 1925 intended by that and I do not think that the Minister knows either. We can only go on what they said. We know that the Act at that time codified the payment of the wayleaves and that the tramway company was then in a monopoly position.

The wayleave payments were never made in return for a monopoly right. They were a rent paid for the privilege of laying tracks on the streets.

They were, if you like, a rent paid by the Dublin United Tramways Company for the right of running trams and buses over the Dublin streets.

They never had anything to do with buses.

The Act of 1925 raised the question of the buses. There are now buses, or vehicles, if you desire so to describe them, running over the Dublin streets. It does not matter whether they are trams or buses. Why should the new company be put into a better position vis-a-vis the corporation than the old company occupied?

The company is paying for the right to run buses—and paying heavily.

But they were paying in the past and paying wayleaves, too. We are very nervous up in Cork Hill, particularly in regard to that section about the arbitrator and the provision regarding what he considers to be equitable. I think that that is putting queer ideas into the arbitrator's mind and we should like the Minister to clear up that matter more than he has done.

I advise Deputy Dockrell not to be misled by the Minister's remarks. The Minister is fighting a bad case with considerable adroitness. He has gone through several contracts made by the Dublin United Tramways Company during its history. He recognises that the amalgamated company must take over the tramway company's assets and liabilities. There are certain liabilities which he, and some of those associated with him in putting this Bill through, do not like. Therefore, they put him up to describe them as secured by blackmail, as irrelevant to the Act which imposed them upon the tramways company, and as conditions which any reasonable man would recognise as being utterly inequitable. With that introduction, he proposes to hand the matter over to the arbitrator. It is fantastic to say that the Dublin United Tramways Company went in, trembling like a shorn lamb, before the Dublin Corporation and said: "Gentlemen, we will give you £14,000 a year if you withdraw your opposition to the Bill before the Committee of Dáil Eireann." The tramways company is not a bleating lamb in the presence of a voracious tiger. It has demonstrated in the course of its honourable history that it is well able to fight its own battles against the Dublin Corporation or any other body. The truth is that, up to 1925, Dublin United Tramways Company had enjoyed, for the payment of wayleaves, a virtual monopoly of the transport of the city. They would not put on buses because they wanted to continue the tramway monopoly, but others put on buses in spite of them. Therefore, they had to make up their minds on the issue which confronted them inasmuch as the citizens were travelling by bus and would not avail of the trams. They wanted to put on buses when they had either to put on buses or go out of business. They came to Dáil Eireann to get their charter altered.

Observe what their payment of wayleaves up to 1925 had secured for them. They were the transport organisation in Dublin. They were in a very advantageous position in the transport trade in Dublin. The moment they went into the bus business they commenced with an immense advantage in their favour over everybody else running buses. The hard-headed directors of the company sat down and said: "The right to get into this bus business, with our immense, additional advantages, is well worth a deal with the Dublin Corporation." Dublin Corporation said: "It is perfectly clear that our permission to you to have exclusive wayleave for trams since 1896 has put you in a very advantageous position vis-a-vis the private entrepreneurs in the bus business. If you go into the bus business and get out of the tram business, you will leave us holding the baby and get an asset out of all proportion to what you paid in the past. Therefore, we are going to represent to Dáil Eireann that you should not be allowed to operate buses at all, or, if you are, that some statutory charge should be laid upon you, payable to the corporation in perpetuity, for the right to run buses over the streets of Dublin.” Thereupon, the tramways company very prudently said: “Look here, boys, let us make a deal.”

Will the Deputy say why other people were running buses on the Dublin streets and not paying anything to the Dublin Corporation?

It was purely a matter of negotiation between the Dublin United Tramways Company and the Dublin Corporation. The tramways company came to the conclusion that they were making a mighty good bargain in securing that the corporation would not make the representations which they proposed to make to Dáil Eireann with a view to having a statutory charge imposed upon the tramways company in lieu of the wayleaves which they would have ceased to pay under the original agreement if they went out of the tram business and went into the bus business. They entered into a contract with Dublin Corporation which meant, in effect, if not in words, that they were to pay £14,000 a year in perpetuity to the Dublin Corporation. Now, Córas Iompair Éireann, Teo., do not want to pay. I have made many contracts which I should like to shed, but I have got the benefit of them and must go on paying. Córas Iompair Éireann, Teo., says: "We do not want to go on paying. Therefore, it is up to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if the matter is raised on this Bill, to state our case exclusively and not to put the corporation side of the story at all." The picture presented to us is that of the Dublin United Tramways Company coming forward with the simplest Bill possible to provide that they should be able to do what every other citizen could do. Then, we have the big black wolf of the corporation coming in, blackmailing the tramways company and threatening to exercise political pressure on them. Because of this, the innocent tramways company gently undertook to pay £14,000 to the corporation. Now, Córas Iompair Éireann, Teo., is going to mow the blackmailer down, restore equity and justice in the land and the Dublin ratepayer is going to pay.

This House may be persuaded by the Minister's eloquence and by his apparent indignation at the blackmailing activities and other iniquities of the Dublin Corporation but, so far as I am concerned, that cock does not fight. I believe that the Dublin United Tramways Company did make an agreement and that Córas Iompair Éireann, Teo., wants to get out of it. I think that Deputy O'Sullivan, the Lord Mayor, and other members of Dublin Corporation in this House should watch these sections closely and ensure that this matter will be referred to the arbitrator without trimmings, that he will be instructed to view this contract of the Dublin United Tramways Company, which is being taken over by Córas Iompair Éireann, Teo., in the same light as he would view any other contract taken over, without any reference to blackmail, double-dealing, or anything but what is on the record. He should recognise that there is a contract in existence, and that it is desired to terminate the contract and to capitalise the liabilities of the Dublin United Tramways Company. Those are the only relevant matters that the arbitrator can or ought to consider, and if he has any other matters to consider, in connection with the question of arriving at his award, then I suggest to the House, and to Deputy Dockrell and other Deputies who have spoken on this matter, that Córas Iompair Éireann, Teo., should not be relieved of the burden of taking over liabilities that were undertaken by its predecessor.

Question proposed: "That Section 50, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 23.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Furlong, Walter.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O Cléirigh, Mícheál.
  • O'Connor, John S.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Skinner, Leo B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard S.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Cafferky, Dominick.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Coogan, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Heskin, Denis.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Larkin, James.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Corish and Larkin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 51.

I move amendment No. 110:—

Before Section 51 to insert the following new section:—

(1) As on and from the 1st day of January, 1945—

(a) the Agreement of 1887 and the Agreement of 1910 shall cease to have effect;

(b) the liability of the Northern Railway Company, under the Agreement of 1887 and the Agreement of 1910, to contribute a sum not exceeding £2,000 per annum towards payment of a dividend at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum on the 4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' Guaranteed Stock of the dissolved railway company and all liability, contingent or otherwise, of the company to the Northern Railway Company or of the Northern Railway Company to the company in respect of the said contribution shall cease;

(c) the company shall continue to operate the normal system of trains run before the said date for the purposes of, and in connection with, the mails services of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, over the Dublin Junction Railways and the company's railway between Westland Row in the City of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Mail Pier, until the company and the Northern Railway Company, with the consent of the said Minister agree otherwise;

(d) if, for convenience of working, the Northern Railway Company send any carriage or rolling stock over the Dublin Junction Railways and the company's railway between Westland Row aforesaid and Dun Laoghaire Mail Pier, no payment shall be made by the company to the Northern Railway Company in respect of any such carriage or rolling stock, nor shall any toll for haulage be charged by the company against the Northern Railway Company in respect of any such carriage or rolling stock.

(2) In consideration of the arrangements effected by sub-section (1) of this section, the Northern Railway Company shall, on the 1st day of January, 1945, pay to the company the sum of £8,000.

(3) In this section—

the expression "the Northern Railway Company" means the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland);

the expression "the Agreement of 1887" means the agreement made on the 26th day of August, 1887, between the Northern Railway Company of the first part, the former City of Dublin Steam Packet Company of the second part, and the former Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company of the third part;

the expression "the Agreement of 1910" means the agreement made on the 7th day of July, 1910, between the Northern Railway Company of the first part, the former City of Dublin Steam Packet Company of the second part, and the former Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company formerly the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company of the third part.

the expression "the Dublin Junction Railways" means the railways constructed under the Dublin Wicklow and Wexford Railway (City of Dublin Junction Railways) Act, 1884.

In the Bill, as originally framed, Section 51, provided for the continuance of the liabilities and rights of the guarantors of the 4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways guaranteed stock, and made arrangements to give effect to any agreement that might be arrived at between the guarantors for the termination of the arrangement, and, furthermore, provided for the appointment of an arbitrator in the event of such agreement not being made. Since then, however, discussions have taken place between the parties, and, arising out of these discussions, it is proposed to insert in the Bill this new section in substitution for Section 51, which makes a new arrangement in relation to the City of Dublin Junction Railways.

The City of Dublin Junction Railway was built as a result of the agreement of 1887 which is referred to in the amendment. That agreement was entered into by the Great Northern Railway Company, the Dublin Steampacket Company, and the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company. The capital of the City of Dublin Junction Railway was £300,000: £50,000 preference stock, £225,000 4 per cent. guaranteed preference stock, £25,000 unguaranteed stock, and there was also an issue of debenture stock. The dividend upon the guaranteed stock was guaranteed in perpetuity by the three companies: the Great Northern Railway Company, the Dublin Steampacket Company, and the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company, which is now the Great Southern Railways Company. The City of Dublin Steampacket Company's portion of the guarantee was liquidated by the lodgment in court of £35,000. The Great Southern Railways Company have completed arrangements for the redemption of the City of Dublin Junction Railways stocks in connection with which other amendments will be moved later. In the main part, these stocks will be redeemed in cash, and, to a lesser extent, by the exchange of redeemable debentures of the new company. The unguaranteed stocks were held entirely by the Great Southern Railways Company, and will be cancelled under the provisions of Section 117. The new arrangement which has been arrived at in consultation with the directors of the Great Southern Railways Company and the Great Northern Railway Company involves the payment by the Great Northern Railway Company to the new company on the 1st January, 1945, of a sum of £8,000, and thereafter the agreements of 1887 and 1910 will cease to have effect, with the exception of certain arrangements which are specifically retained by the wording of the amendment. These provisions in the amendment relate to the running, by the company, of certain Post Office services over the line, and for reciprocity in regard to the use of rolling stock of the Great Northern Railway Company, and of tolls for haulage. Until 1942 the guarantors had to make payments every year to enable the dividend upon the guaranteed stock to be paid. In 1942 there was no call made on the guarantors. Under the old arrangement, however, the guarantors continued to be liable in the event of default, but would be entitled to recover the amount paid by them in respect of their guarantee out of any surplus which might be earned in other years. The new agreement brings that old arrangement to an end. The stock will be liquidated and cancelled; the guarantee will cease to be operative, and a sum of £8,000, will be paid by the Great Northern Railway Company as a result of which it will secure release from its liabilities under the agreement.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 51 not moved.
Section 52 agreed to.
SECTION 53.

I move amendment No. 111:—

In sub-section (3), page 25, to delete lines 3 to 7 and substitute the words "section, the company shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds".

Sub-section (3) provides for the recovery and application of penalties as required by the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. The provisions of that Act are, however, obsolete. They are very antiquated and it is considered desirable to substitute this other arrangement in lieu thereof.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 53, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 54.

I move amendment No. 112:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—

The references, in Section 55 of the Railways Act, 1924 (No. 29 of 1924), and in Sections 10 and 16 of the Railways Act, 1933 (No. 9 of 1933), to a railway company shall be construed as including references to the company.

I referred to this amendment in the course of previous discussions. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that the obligation of the railway company in the matter of arranging conditions of employment, wages and so on of the workers in accordance with agreements made with trade unions, will apply to all its employees, including the road transport employees of the Dublin United Transport Company who will become officers of the new company, following amalgamation. I stated previously that there was no necessity for this provision but, in the course of the discussions, some doubt was created in respect of the matter, so I have decided to remove the doubt by inserting this amendment which places the matter beyond all argument.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 113:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—

For the purposes of the Income Tax Acts the company shall be deemed to be a railway company.

The assessments to income-tax on the property and profits of a railway are made in a somewhat different manner from the method employed in the case of ordinary individuals. It is necessary to provide here that, for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts, the company will be deemed to be a railway company.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 54, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 agreed to.
SECTION 60.

I move amendment No. 114:—

Before Section 60, but in Part II of the Bill, to insert the following new section:—

(1) If any person trespass upon any of the railways of, or worked by, the company, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding two pounds.

(2) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of trespass—

(a) the fact that he had not received a personal warning against trespass shall not be a ground of defence,

(b) he shall not, in any case, be convicted of the offence unless the company proves to the satisfaction of the court that, at the date of the trespass, there was affixed, at the station of the company and at the level crossing nearest to the spot where the trespass is alleged to have been committed, a notice (painted on boards or printed, painted or enamelled on enamelled or other iron or any other material) in legible characters warning persons not to trespass on the railways of the company.

(3) No person lawfully, crossing the railway of the company at any level crossing thereof shall be liable to any fine under this section.

(4) An offence under this section may be prosecuted by the company.

It is desirable to make a new and clear provision in relation to trespass upon the company's railways. The position is that each of the companies that were amalgamated into the Great Southern Railways Company had a different law in the matter. That is an undesirable position. By this amendment the law is made the same for all parts of the company's system.

Is there any possibility that, say, an adjoining owner to the railway line would be prosecuted for crossing from one field to another or for driving his stock from one field to another? I take it the Minister does not want to prosecute a farmer who is bona fide working his farm and who in the course of his business has to cross from one side to the other. Under this section, unless posters are displayed all over the place—and even if they are—a man might be put to considerable difficulty.

That is the position. The line must not be crossed except at a recognised level crossing. When the line was being built, of course, provision was made to facilitate adjoining land owners in that regard and to give them access to land on both sides of the railway-line wherever that was desirable in accordance with the position at that time.

In other words, they would have a private way across it themselves?

If they have that arrangement made which involves a right of way across the line then, of course, that right is assured to them.

This section will not interfere with that right?

This section does not interfere with any such right but it does not give any landowner the right to cross the line unless he has a recognised right to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Under Section 60, a series of amendments appears, all dealing with the composition of the transport advisory committee.

I just want to mention —I intended to refer to it on Section 58—that I have a slight drafting amendment to suggest to that section on Report Stage.

That is to No. 58?

Yes. I just mention that because otherwise I think I would not be entitled to move it on Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 115 to 123 might usefully be discussed together and they would suggest decisions on, say, Nos. 117, 118 and 122, which would cover the major points; Nos. 115 and 116 are separate points of detail.

Amendment No. 115 is in the names of two of my colleagues. Quite frankly, I do not know what is the argument. I do not know precisely what is the reason for the amendment. Deputy Norton, I understand, is coming into the House immediately.

The Committee will give him a few minutes. The amendment proposes to delete the word "Minister" and substitute "Taoiseach".

I do not like moving the amendment when I do not know what the argument of it is.

I am afraid I could not enlighten the Deputy.

Neither can I.

I will take the responsibility of withdrawing the amendment.

Amendment No. 115, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 116:—

In sub-section (2) (a), at the end of line 26, to add the following words:

"and shall be a person who in the opinion of the Minister is experienced in transport affairs".

We have down a series of amendments dealing with the constitution of the advisory committee. Our idea is to try to give the public an opportunity of having some representation and some voice in this bureaucratic institution that is autocratically presided over by the Minister, and not by the chairman of the company. The all-powerful person in this make-up is the Minister himself. As I pointed out on the last occasion, he has the right to terminate the chairman's office at any time he desires. If the public have some say in the constitution of the committee, if at any rate, the committee is representative of certain important interests in the country, they may feel, if there is a case to be argued, that someone on that committee holds a watching brief for that particular interest.

I think the Minister indicated on the last day we were discussing this Bill that he was not prepared to change his views regarding this committee, but I should like to press the Minister to reconsider that matter. I am not pressing for the selection of the particular bodies I have mentioned in the amendment. I put them in merely to give the Minister some idea as to the constitution of the committee. I suggest that he should get a certain number of important bodies to nominate panels, from which the Minister for Agriculture would pick, on the agricultural side, and from which the Minister for Industry and Commerce would pick on the industrial side and that the chairman should have some experience of transport affairs—although it is indicated in the section that this chairman need not necessarily have any particular qualification—and that the other members of the board ought to be representative of a particular and special interest in the country. There is no use in labouring the point further.

I may say that I think this advisory committee ought not to be merely ornamental. I think if the House agrees to the constitution of the committee as set out in the Bill it will be more or less ornamental and may very seldom be brought into operation. It should have a very much more important place in the whole transport machinery. If it had, we would get away from the idea that is being expressed here, with which I agree, that we are setting up a bureaucratic-autocratic machine and that the public generally will have no means of redress or of airing their grievances except, possibly, by way of Parliamentary Question and we have experience of the fate of Parliamentary Questions. The Minister simply tells the Deputy that he is quite satisfied that the particular machinery that exists is functioning properly and in the interests of the people and that is an end of it. The advisory committee that we suggest need not necessarily be drawn from the bodies mentioned in the amendment. These bodies merely occurred to me offhand. I did not go to any trouble to select the very best bodies that might be suitable for that purpose, but if the Minister were to agree to the principle of the amendment I would be prepared to leave it to himself to select the bodies.

I do not think the adjectives "autocratic" or "bureaucratic" apply to this organisation, whatever else they might be called. This is an advisory committee.

I am talking about the whole machinery.

I want to say a few words about it.

The Minister must not misunderstand me. I did not discuss this as a bureaucratic body. I described the machinery we are setting up under the Bill as bureaucratic.

The position under the Act of 1924 was that the Railway Tribunal was established to deal with all matters affecting the public in relation to transport—matters of law as well as of administration. That arrangement was not a success. The public did not avail of it because of the delay and the cost of taking their sometimes trivial cases to the Railway Tribunal. Even where cases were not trivial they were intimidated by the high legal costs that they were risking, and the delays in getting effective decisions. It is quite obvious that we have to get away from a position which has been tried and which after nearly 20 years has proved unsuitable to our circumstances. We propose to get away from that by trying out and following the lines indicated by experience. Experience has shown that, in so far as the Railway Tribunal had judicial functions, they were not of such a character as to require a special court for their discharge. The proposal is that the judicial functions previously exercised by the Railway Tribunal will be transferred to the High Court. The High Court can adequately discharge these functions. In so far as its functions related to administration experience has shown that it was unnecessary. As I stated in the Dáil on a previous occasion in 99 cases out of 100 where adjustments had to be made following representations from trading interests or special localities, adjustments were made by discussion with the officials of the railway company concerned, or by Ministerial representations to the railway company. That procedure not merely involved more expeditious action, but placed the parties concerned under no obligation in respect to costs.

We propose in this Bill to abolish the Railway Tribunal, to transfer to the High Court the judicial functions previously exercised by it, and to give to the Minister responsible to the Dáil the administrative functions. To enable the Minister to discharge the administrative functions properly, it is proposed that he should have the assistance of an advisory committee, that will, where necessary, conduct a public inquiry into matters concerning which an application is made. There may be applications for reduction of rates, for an alteration in the classification of merchandise, for the provision of additional facilities of a special kind in particular areas or a number of other matters. Where it is clear that an application is of such a character that an opportunity should be given to other interests that may be adversely affected if the application was granted, to make their case, or to have a general investigation into all the circumstances, the advisory committee will come into the picture and will conduct an inquiry, involving the publication of advertisements relating to the application in the Press, and an invitation to interested parties to come forward and give evidence. We propose to give the committee the powers of the High Court to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents relevant to the inquiry.

This section relates to the constitution of the advisory committee. I want the Dáil to understand that it is not intended to be an independent authority. It is certainly not intended that it should have any existence apart from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is his advisory committee, set up by him to advise him, and any idea that there should be a change of its character into an independent tribunal of any kind, or of constituting it a permanent commission of inquiry, is completely contrary to the idea on which the Bill was founded. The provision in the Bill relating to the constitution of the committee was framed with that one idea, to give the Minister an advisory committee in whose capacity to advise him he has confidence. It is proposed that he should be free to put on the committee the persons he thinks best suited to act on it, subject to the limitations set out here, that one of the persons whom he appoints must be, in his opinion, experienced in commercial and industrial affairs, one must be a person experienced in labour matters, and the third person must have experience of transport affairs. I should resist the idea that the committee should be constituted on any basis which would give members of it any functions to discharge, other than to advise the Minister, or which would put them in a position to influence transport policy on matters other than those which may be referred to the committee under various sections of the Bill.

We have a number of amendments dealing with the constitution of the committee, and I want to say in relation to these that none of them should be accepted. The chairman of the committee should not necessarily be experienced in transport affairs. He should be experienced in administrative affairs because this committee will deal mainly with questions of administration. That person should be one who had sufficient knowledge of the conduct of business to appreciate the importance to traders, and the significance to the transport organisation of the various applications that might be made affecting conditions of carriage and provision of facilities. So long as he has on the committee a person who has experience of transport affairs the main qualification we should look for in the chairman is general experience in the administration of a matter of this kind.

An amendment in the names of Deputy Doyle, Deputy Lynch and Deputy McGilligan seeks to require that one of the members of the committee shall have experience of railway administration. I pointed out that the wording of the section in the Bill requires one of the members of the committee to have experience in transport affairs, and I take it that these Deputies have the idea of placing special significance on railway experience rather than on transport experience. I would resist that amendment vehemently, if there is behind the amendment the idea that the advisory committee should be given definitely a pro-railway bias or any sort of bias. That is a wrong idea, and one that the Dáil should not accept. We can get a person with experience of transport affairs on the committee, but I object to being limited to a choice of persons, whose knowledge and experience of transport affairs were in the conduct of railways.

The proposal that the persons to be nominated as representative of agriculture and with experience in commercial matters should be chosen from panels submitted by various organisations, is one that I would also be inclined to resist. We must bear in mind that this committee is an advisory committee appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to advise him, and that consequently he should be free to choose individuals who, in his opinion, are best able to advise him. It is the Minister who has to bear responsibility for actions, not the committee. It is the Minister ultimately who has to bear the brunt and to justify those actions. The committee has no responsibility to anybody but the Minister. If, on its recommendation, he makes an order which arouses public criticism, it is the Minister has to answer. If, in spite of recommendations, he refuses to make an order of some importance to the public interest, it is he has to justify his action, and he can neither excuse his action by referring to the recommendation of the committee nor drag the committee into any controversy which may arise on his decision.

There is another amendment, in the names of Deputies Hughes and Cosgrave, which seeks to debar from membership of the committee a person holding any permanent office under the State. I may say that, in my opinion, a person holding permanent office under the State would not ordinarily be the type of person whom one would put on an advisory committee of this kind, but I think it would be unwise to put a legal bar against the appointment of such persons in any circumstances whatever. I can tell Deputies, however, that so far as my intentions have any bearing on their views in this connection, I would not propose to include on the advisory committee which I would appoint to advise me a person holding permanent office under the State.

I have already dealt with amendment No. 124 to Section 61 which proposes to authorise this committee to carry on a sort of roving inquiry into all matters affecting public transport. I think that should not be a function of the committee, and I would strongly resist a proposal that powers in that regard should be given to it. I know that Deputies have the idea that in this matter there should be some brake on the Minister, that he should be made subject to the supervision of some external authority. I think they are wrong in that. In the last resort, it is the Dáil which must be held responsible for policy and it is to the Dáil, and to the Dáil alone, the Minister should be responsible. Whatever organisation he may set up outside to advise him and to help him to discharge his functions, it would be a wrong position to create in which the Minister could excuse his actions or inactions by referring to the fact that some other body had considered the matter and had advised for or against the course taken.

This committee is intended to be an advisory committee and it should be nothing else but an advisory committee. I feel that if I were in opposition and this Bill were promoted by another Government, I would strongly support that point of view. I would strongly resist any attempt to make this committee anything but an advisory committee, because by doing so it would appear to lessen the responsibility of the Minister to the Dáil and that, I think, would be in the long run be undesirable.

The Minister stressed the point that it is not the intention that this body should be anything more than an advisory committee, that it is not to be an independent authority. To some extent, I would be in agreement with the Minister, but for one consideration. He has brought the Railway Tribunal into this argument, and I submit it is very difficult to argue on this section without relating it to the Railway Tribunal and the fact that it is to be abolished. The Minister has informed the House, and I am sure the information he has given is correct, that the discharge of the functions of the Railway Tribunal was so elaborate and costly that people who had a grievance with regard to freight charges or conditions of carriage invited his Department to intervene and that that intervention invariably brought about a settlement of the matter between the aggrieved party and the carrying company.

I have no doubt that that did take place, but what strikes me about it is that the fact that his Department, the railway company and the public felt all the time that behind the intervention of the Department was an independent tribunal to which, as a last resort, they had a right to appeal, influenced the decision of all parties and their will to co-operate and find agreement along certain lines. The attitude of the individual and of the company might have been vastly different if they had not had at the back of their minds the knowledge that they had the right to appeal to that tribunal at all times. That essential safeguard was there all the time, and although it might not have been brought into operation very often, the fact that it was there must have influenced to a very great extent the anxiety to reach a settlement. Remove that, and the whole situation completely changes.

The Minister has given us an assurance that it is not his intention to appoint a public servant to this committee, but he has suggested that it would be very undesirable to have a legal bar against the appointment of a public servant. We are legislating not merely for the Minister's term of office, but for his successors' terms of office as well, and what I regard as objectionable is the putting of a politician in a position in which he will decide freight charges as between individuals.

Any allegation of undue preference would be dealt with by the High Court, and not by the Minister.

Quite, but it may be an obscure case of which the High Court or the Dáil might never hear. That is why I am anxious to put this committee in a position to initiate inquiries on their own. I am not making any allegation, or suggesting that the Minister might follow that undesirable practice, but we are providing machinery which is left open to an abuse of this sort, and I do not think the House should agree to it. We ought to put in the necessary safeguards to ensure that such machinery will not be abused. My answer to the Minister's point with regard to his Department being used is that the Railway Tribunal was there all the time, and those engaged in the settling of any dispute or in the adjustment of any freight charges, had always in their minds the knowledge that there was a definite safeguard provided for by the appointment of an independent judge who would give an impartial decision on a case argued by an individual or group of individuals who wanted more favourable terms, and the defence argued on behalf of the company. Although the Department was invited to intervene, that knowledge definitely influenced the decisions made. Remove that machinery which gives an independent judicial decision and there is a completely different picture.

I disagree profoundly with the Minister on some of the fundamental principles involved here. As I say, I do not suggest that the Minister will indulge in any of the objectionable practices to which I refer, but there is a responsibility on the Minister and on the House to put in the necessary safeguards, so that the public mind will be satisfied that whatever decisions are come to by the Minister are open to investigation by an independent body and so that there can be no innuendo to the effect that a partial decision has been given by any Minister. I put it to the Minister that it is desirable in his own interest that some machinery of the sort should be provided. That is the big issue which has agitated my mind. If the Minister is not prepared to give way, he at least ought to look into it and provide some machinery which will satisfy the public that strictly impartial decisions are given by him. Under this proposal, a very big and heavy responsibility is thrown on the Minister to exercise strict impartiality. The Minister knows as well as I do the suggestions which can be made in that respect, but if he puts in the necessary safeguards, the matter will be beyond doubt or question. It would be in the interests of transport and of the individual himself for the time being and the person who will occupy his position later, that we should put in that safeguard.

I want to make one point arising out of a remark made by Deputy Hughes which appeared to indicate a misunderstanding of the general scheme of the Bill. It is not intended that the Minister will exercise any judicial function or determine between one individual and another.

He may fix and vary charges.

Maximum charges. That is the fundamental distinction between this Bill and the 1924 Act. The 1924 Act set up a railway tribunal with power to determine standard charges and the railway company was required to charge these standard charges. It could only alter the standard charges with the permission of the tribunal, except to the extent of the percentage mentioned in the Bill. That is all gone. That old machinery is being done away with.

The Minister does not anticipate that the maximum charges will not always operate?

No. The position under the Act of 1924 is that the standard charges never operated. The company never could charge the standard charges, and the business of the tribunal was concerned with applications by the company for permission to charge less than the standard charges. They had to apply to the tribunal for that purpose, because that was the scheme in the 1924 Act. We are getting away from that. We are providing maximum charges. The company may charge below the maximum but, if they do alter the rates to bring them below the maximum rates in respect of any class of goods, the new rates will apply to everybody. There can be no discrimination between one individual and another. There is a certain amendment which I shall move later relating to flat rates which must be borne in mind in that connection. But the scheme of standard charges and exceptional charges relating to standard charges, which was an integral part of the 1924 plan, is being abolished completely. We are getting a simplified system of charges based upon certain principles. One is that the public authority, namely, the Minister, can prescribe the maximum charges; that whatever charges are in operation must be equally available to everybody, so that there can be no discrimination between one individual and another. That is the whole scheme of the Bill and it is quite simple.

The matters with which this committee will deal are entirely different. It will relate the maximum charges to the classifications, because the class into which a particular commodity is put will determine the charges to be made for the transportation of that commodity. There are frequent disputes between the company and the trader as to the proper classification of a commodity, and these matters could be referred to the Minister and settled in accordance with this procedure. There are questions as to the facilities given, as to whether goods are dangerous goods and properly classified and charged for as such, the reasonableness of the charges made for some accommodation afforded other than transport, the facilities afforded for the expeditious conveyance of perishable goods, and the general question of the adequacy of the transport facilities provided in any area. There are other matters which I could mention, but it is this type of general matter which will be referred to the Minister and may be referred by him to the advisory committee. Whatever decisions are arrived at following an application of that kind will be implemented in Orders, and these Orders will be effective not merely for the benefit of the applicant on whose initiative the Order was made, but for every user of the transport company's system. If there is any question of law, of undue preference, upon which a judicial decision is required, the application goes to the High Court.

The Minister referred to every possible aspect of it except the one which would concern me more than the others. Where the carrying company, under the 1924 Act, apply for permission to operate a charge less than the standard charge, that is obviously all right and the public will be quite satisfied with that. What I am concerned with is where a representative of the public, an individual or a group of individuals, want to object to the railway company's charging a maximum charge and where they feel that the maximum charge is too high. To give an example. There was a controversy recently about the freight charges for beet.

That is a bad example to take because the actual charge in operation is 40 or 50 per cent. below the standard charge.

I do not know whether it is a bad example or a good example, so far as the maximum or standard charge is concerned. I know it is a good example from the point of view of people who want to get beet carried. So far as the standard charges are concerned, if we had a board constituted somewhat on the lines I suggest, the agricultural community anyway would feel that they had some say in the selection of that board. They would feel confident that their representative's arguments and his interest in trying to secure favourable conditions for them would satisfy the public that their interests were properly looked after and safeguarded. That is the reason why I suggest to the Minister that he might think of constituting a board on the lines I suggest. He would get the different organisations to put up a panel from which the Minister for Agriculture would pick individuals and a panel on the other side from which the Minister for Industry and Commerce would pick individuals. I had some experience some years ago of going before the Railway Tribunal on the question of freight charges for beet and beet pulp and I felt we got every opportunity of arguing our case and that the decision arrived at was a strictly impartial decision on the case made and defended. The machinery may be costly or unwieldy from the administrative point of view, but it struck me that that sort of machinery would satisfy the public that they were getting a strictly impartial and fair decision so far as the fixation of charges, the carrying conditions, etc., were concerned.

As I understand it, some of these amendments in the names of Deputy Hughes and Deputy Cosgrave seek to give some voice to certain organised sections of the community in getting representation on this advisory committee. So far as that is the idea, I support it and I support Deputy Hughes' idea that it may be desirable to alter the terms of this amendment if the Minister thinks fit. The Minister has been very strong on the point that, since this is an advisory committee, he should definitely select his advisers, so to speak. I do not think he has established a case for that, because this is an advisory committee, it has not executive powers, and the Minister is not absolutely bound to accept the advice which it gives. The Minister for Agriculture, for example, has a number of advisory committees and, particularly, there is the Consultative Agricultural Council, the members of which are not selected by the Minister, but are appointed by independent bodies. He is not absolutely bound to accept their advice, and he would not be bound in this case. I think the Minister would benefit by independent advice, and so would the sections of the community which seek representations through these amendments.

The Minister did not advert to the fact that since this section was drafted there was presented to the Government a very important report by the Vocational Organisation Commission, which suggested the setting up of a body with functions somewhat similar to those envisaged in this section. The Vocational Organisation Commission advocated the setting up of a transport council and they suggested that various interests should be represented on that council. They suggested, too, that the bigger sections of the transport industry should be represented—the railways, the roads, private road users, users of public transport, shipping companies; in fact, all people engaged in public transport. They also suggested, as in Deputy Hughes' amendment, that the agricultural community should have direct representation on that council.

In view of the fact that such a recommendation has been made, I think the Minister should take it seriously into consideration and if he cannot accept this amendment, he should make some provision for the acceptance, at a later stage, of the suggestions contained in the commission's recommendations. I know the commission's recommendations are more or less conditional upon a certain amount of preliminary organisation taking place before the transport council can be constituted. I think, however, that some provision should be made in this legislation for the ultimate acceptance of a transport council such as is envisaged, a council which could take the place of the narrower committee which the Minister advocates, or which is implied in the section.

I am sure the Minister will agree with me when I say that what the public want is cheap, efficient transport both of themselves and their goods. I take it that under the Bill the Minister is endeavouring to secure that an efficient transport system will be established. In relation to portion of that transport system the Minister for Industry and Commerce will have certain responsibilities, certain functions to perform. In the performance of these functions he will require advice. I think the Minister is sufficiently experienced to realise that very often subordinates, particularly if they are associated with a person for any length of time, will attempt to give to their superior some advice which they think will be acceptable to him. Very often the advice given in such circumstances might be wrong advice, certainly advice which would be less suitable to the circumstances than the advice which would be rendered by people in an independent capacity.

The section sets out that the advisory committee shall be composed of certain people selected by the Minister, and also by the Minister for Agriculture. They will be people who, in the opinion of the Minister, are experienced in commercial and industrial affairs and, in the case of the Minister for Agriculture, the person selected will be experienced in agricultural matters. The reason why we put down this amendment, or this group of amendments, is to ensure that the Minister will have some chance of getting advice from people other than hand-picked individuals whom the Minister is nearly certain or will be partially forced to pick under the Bill as it stands. The organisations which we have suggested were suggested at random or, at any rate, to the extent that they appear to be the ones best suited for the position; but there is nothing sacrosanct about them. If the Minister has other bodies or organisations which might be better suited for the position, we would be quite willing to accept them.

The organisations we have suggested have, in one case, a connection with the agricultural community and, in another case, with the business community. They will be concerned with the welfare of the people from whom they are drawn. From the Minister's statement it appears to me that he wants a person upon whom he can rely. He says that in the last resort he will have to bear the responsibility. I believe the Minister will be far better prepared to bear the responsibility if the advice he receives is sound advice, not alone from the actual section concerned but viewed from the general transport position. I suggest the Minister should select people who would be independent rather than hand-picked. I do not know whether the Minister has any particular scheme in mind, but under the Bill he can go to the Civil Service and pick an individual, though he says that that is not likely. On the other hand, he may pick a person and, having experience of what Governments may do, I believe there might be a tendency to pick a political supporter, some person who wants a job.

Under the proposals we have made there is an effort to find some impartial body, or to give representation on this body in an impartial manner in order to ensure that, so far as the public are concerned, they will be advised in their own interests and not merely in the interests of the Minister or the Civil Service or the State. The real flaw in this Bill is that the Minister comes into it too much, fixing fares and freight charges. Although there are maximum charges, the position is that ultimately the Minister can decide what he is going to fix as a maximum charge, and he may fix a maximum charge far out of proportion to whatever commodities may reach. There will be a tendency all the time that the company, in close contact with the Minister, may charge excessively for the transport of commodities, whereas if an independent body were available, it might ensure a lower rate of charges.

Transport might be better managed if it were run in an independent fashion rather than be all the time subject to State interference. You have, on the one hand, a chairman nominated by the Government to look after the interests of the public. Possibly that is desirable, but I assume that one person would be sufficient to look after the interests of the public without having the Minister directing him and very often, unless the advice is sound, misdirecting him, maybe from political motives, but at any rate subject to political pressure at any time. If the Minister draws his nominees from semi-State appointments or semi-Civil Service positions, there will be an obvious tendency to depart from practical experience and you will find the Minister advised merely from one point of view, possibly with no relation to the actual requirements.

Without prolonging the Debate, I want to say in connection with Deputy Cosgrave's fears that, with the possible exception of the maximum charges to be prescribed and the facilities to be afforded in particular areas, I cannot see any political interest of any kind associated with any of the questions which would be referred to this committee. I think it is inevitable that the Minister will have no preconceived ideas one way or the other, and will be completely indifferent as to the recommendation which the committee will make. The classification of the merchandise, the decision as to what are dangerous goods, the amount to be charged for terminal services, the articles which may be conveyed as passengers' luggage, the merchandise on which charges may be based on cubic capacity instead of on weight, the charges to be made by the company for the use of trucks where transportation by truck is not part of the contract—those are the questions which arise there. They are questions of general administration, upon which a decision has to be taken by somebody, and where the special commercial interests of the company may come in conflict with the public interest. It is for that reason the Minister is brought in, but the Minister's decision will be based on the facts, and I think it is extremely improbable in any of those cases that he will have any interest other than getting a workable and fair arrangement—an arrangement fair both to the company and to the users of the services provided.

The Minister says he does not envisage any case where Deputy Cosgrave's fears might come into operation. Let us take an example. Let us take the case of an individual manufacturer, for the distribution of whose goods the maximum charge is in operation. The competition is very keen, and he finds it very difficult to carry on. He feels that if he got a cut in freight charges it might help him very considerably.

The company will charge him no more for carrying his goods than they will charge other manufacturers for carrying similar goods.

It may be a special article.

In that case the company will have as much interest as the manufacturer in keeping him in business and affording him facilities for the transportation of his goods.

If the company were to carry them at a lesser rate they might be carrying them at a loss.

That has not been unknown.

The Minister may be influenced to make a decision in favour of the manufacturer. That is a possibility, and I am merely suggesting that the Minister should put in the necessary safeguard to satisfy the public mind.

The company carried beet at a loss last year all right.

There were a lot of people carrying it at a lower charge than the company and carrying it at a profit. Public carriers, licensed hauliers, have charged a lesser rate than the company and carried it at a profit. I do not think the Minister can deny that. It is a well-known fact.

Anyone can carry a beet in his pocket.

I admit that the company showed a loss, but, whether they were inefficient or otherwise, the fact remains that a number of private hauliers operated at lower charges and were quite satisfied so to operate.

Indeed, then, they were not.

Indeed, then they were. The Minister need not tell me about it because I know the cases and he does not. The Minister selected a rather unhappy case when he talked about beet.

I assure the Deputy that the charges for individual goods will not arise at all. The maximum charges which will arise here will be the charges for the classes of goods set out in the classification.

There may be goods in which one individual may be interested.

They will either be soft goods, minerals, hardware, machinery, or something of that kind.

Deputy Cogan has referred to the recommendations of the Vocational Commission. That commission has criticised the trend in legislation here. Instead of preserving the public authority, we are inclined to hand things over to Civil Service bureaucratic control. That is the whole trend in legislation here. The Minister is aware of the fact that the Vocational Commission has severely criticised that trend. We are here as public representatives, and we should ensure that the authority of the people is preserved. The amendments put down by us here strive to achieve that end. They seek to ensure, in the transport machinery which we are providing here in this Bill, that some authority will be preserved to the people; that we will have some sort of representative control there, in the form of a board constituted on different lines from what the Minister has suggested. Mind you, the board will not be complete and absolute, because the Minister can still reject the advice given by them, but they should be a little bit more independent than the Minister has envisaged in the Bill. They should be free to initiate inquiries or investigations which they feel may be necessary and desirable.

I presume it would not be the Minister's intention, but there seems to be no reason why the chairman of the company could not also be the chairman of the advisory committee. I presume that would not be the Minister's intention?

No; it would not.

Amendment No. 116 put and declared negatived.

Amendments Nos. 117 to 123, inclusive, not moved.

On the section, there does appear to be unfair disproportion of the representation on the board so far as agriculture is concerned.

It is not intended to be representation.

If it is not some sort of representation, why mention agriculture or any other industry or interest at all? Surely the moment we mention agriculture, some sort of representation is implied?

It was not intended to be representation.

The Minister cannot deny that it is an attempt to give some sort of representation. It is getting one-fifth of the representation that is there.

So is labour, so is industry, so is transport itself.

Section 60, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 61.
Amendment No. 124 not moved.
Section 61 put and agreed to.
SECTION 62.

I move amendment No. 125:—

At the end of the section to insert the following sub-section:—

Where a witness attends before the advisory committee in pursuance of a summons under sub-section (3) of this section, the Minister may, if he so thinks proper, pay to him such sum in respect of expenses incurred by him in connection with his attendance as the Minister, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, considers reasonable.

There was in the Bill no provision with regard to the payment of expenses which might be incurred by witnesses in connection with their attendance at meetings of the advisory committee. This additional sub-section is being inserted to make such provision.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 62, as amended, agreed to.
Section 63 agreed to.
SECTION 64.

I move amendment No. 126:—

Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) A copy of all reports and recommendations of the advisory committee shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

We feel that, if the advisory committee is to serve any useful purpose so far as the public is concerned—so far as the Minister is concerned, it may—we ought to know what the work of the committee is and what the recommendations may be. Sometimes the Minister may not accept the recommendations of the committee.

If the committee is to prepare its reports for publication, it might as well be abolished altogether. The Deputy knows as well as I do that recommendations from and advice given by the committee to the Minister would be in very different form to what would be printed and published. I set up a committee to deal with a minor matter in relation to workers in the cotton industry and their report, which was prepared for publication, started: "Cotton was first grown in Egypt in 2000 B.C." and there followed a description of the growth and development of the cotton industry down to 1938, or whenever the matter in question arose. If that report had been prepared for my own consideration it would have consisted of one page and would have been just as useful. This committee is to advise the Minister and not to publish reports.

We will never know whether the Minister accepts the advice of the committee or not.

One can always ask me.

Is it not to educate the Minister?

Reports are intended to educate more than Ministers, but have not always that effect.

If we put down a question, will we get the full story as to what the committee advised in one case?

I do not wish to mislead the Deputy. In the case of an advisory committee set up under the statute, I have made it a practice to inform the Dáil of my decisions without trying to justify them by reference to recommendations from an advisory committee. I do not think I have refused to tell the Dáil, when asked, what the recommendation of the committee was, but I think the Minister should justify his own decisions and not attempt to shelter behind a report from a committee of this kind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 64 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 127:—

In sub-section (1), line 46, to insert after the word "Agriculture" the words "the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland".

The Commissioners of Public Works are a harbour authority and so it is necessary to include them in the section.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 65, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 66 and 67 agreed to.
SECTION 68.
Amendment No. 128 not moved.

I move amendment No. 129:—

In sub-section (1), line 1, to insert after the word "company" the words, "in respect of its railway undertaking".

This is purely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 130:—

In sub-section (1) (b), line 7, to add after the word "thereon" the words "and shall refer the said proposal to the High Court".

There is a series of amendments here in the name of Deputy McGilligan, designed to substitute the High Court for the Railway Tribunal. We have argued that principle a good deal here on the other amendments. I have not discussed this matter with Deputy McGilligan, but his point of view seems clear. We do not like the type of machine that puts a politician—if the Minister will permit me to describe him as such; I am sure he will—in a position to give decisions of this sort. The public may feel very uneasy about such decisions, in dealing with such important matters as the fixing of freight charges, the conditions for the carriage of goods, and matters of that sort, functions which were carried out by the tribunal, leaving out judicial decisions that are under this Bill being transferred to the High Court. The Minister is not the proper person to exercise those functions, which should be exercised and controlled by a completely independent body, so that the public can rest assured of strictly impartial decisions. The High Court is an absolutely independent body and the public will feel sure of strictly impartial decisions on the cases made by an individual or a group of individuals seeking an adjustment in any charge. So far as the carrying company is concerned, in their defence of existing freight charges, it is a body like the High Court which should function in that case and not the Minister.

Whatever case there may be against the Minister doing the work, I think the High Court would be a most inappropriate body. It could not reasonably be expected to discharge functions of a non-legal character, as is proposed here. The arrangement proposed in the Bill may not be the very best way, but the amendment which is proposed as a substitute for it is almost the worst. The idea in 1924 was to get a specialised tribunal, which would make a particular study of the problem and be in a position to give a competent opinion upon questions brought before it; but that tribunal related to a particular scheme of organisation which has now been abandoned. I should say the High Court would be a most inappropriate body. It is extremely appropriate to deal with legal questions, and all legal questions are, in fact, being referred to it under the Bill. The only questions which are not being referred to it and which were formally discharged by the Railway Tribunal are the non-legal questions, on which the High Court would not be competent to offer an opinion at all.

The Minister's contention is based on the argument that, over a period of 20 years, the practice has been to go to his Department.

And more than that: I think it more desirable.

That has been the argument—that intervention in the Department settled the vast majority of cases. I agree that that is so, but I think the fact that there was an independent tribunal there influenced the minds of everyone concerned.

That whole scheme— not merely the tribunal, but the whole scheme of which the tribunal was a part—is now being abolished. There is no longer the question of standard charges and special charges; there is only the question of maximum charges.

But maximum charges may be standard charges. So far as the operation of the company is concerned, in practice it will work out that the maximum charge fixed by the Minister will become the standard charge.

The intention is to get a simple classification of goods and a simple system of maximum charges in relation to each class. This is entirely different from the old system, which produced 200,000 special charges—a most complicated system, where no one could tell the cost of transportation or what should have been charged for particular commodities. Even the railway company was not always able to ascertain the position properly, and an enormous amount of staff work was required before anyone could even tell the proper charge for the carriage of certain goods. That system, which produced 200,000 special charges, is being discarded completely and a simple system of standard classifications and maximum charges is being introduced, with the overriding provision that if an alteration takes place in the actual charges below the maximum it must apply to all transport users. The Minister only comes in in the definition of the classification and the fixing of the maximum charges. The individual will be given every opportunity to ascertain the cost at which his goods can be transported and, if he has any reason to believe that the company is acting unfairly to him, he has an appeal to the courts.

So far as the individual is concerned, obviously he will not have to appeal to the Minister until the maximum charge comes into operation. Is not that so?

So far as the maximum charge is concerned, he would hardly have any interest at all, but I am speaking of associations of traders, of cattle dealers, of beet growers or bodies such as a chamber of commerce.

When I speak of an individual, I mean a group of individuals.

If there is a question of his being charged too much, he will have no redress, unless he can secure a general revision of maximum charges, unless his complaint is that he is being charged more than somebody else for the same service, in which event the case goes to the court.

So far as an individual or a group of individuals are concerned, they will have not an opportunity of appealing to the Minister unless the maximum charge is in operation. If the maximum charge is not in operation the Minister can reply: "The carrying company has not reached the maximum charge." There will be no appeal to the Minister unless the company is operating the maximum charge.

There may be a revision of the maximum charge.

An aggrieved individual will then have no opportunity of being heard.

If the charge is less than the maximum it keeps them out of the picture altogether.

I think there should be some independent body, not a politician, to deal with these matters.

Taking the word "politician" in its best sense, I think it is a politician's job. A politician is a person responsible to the Dáil and through the Dáil to the people. It is not a job for somebody aloof from the people.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

Amendment No. 131 not moved.
Section 68, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 69.

I move amendment No. 132:—

In sub-section (1), in lines 25 and 26, to insert after the word "conveyance" the words "by rail".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.

I move amendment No. 135:—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), line 34, to delete the words "persons interested" and substitute the words "interested persons".

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 69, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.
Section 70 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.
Section 71 agreed to.
SECTION 72.

I move amendment No. 140:—

In sub-section (1), lines 15, 16, 20 and 23, to delete the word "statutory".

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 72, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 141 not moved.
Section 73 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 not moved.
Sections 74 to 76, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 144 not moved.
Section 77 agreed to.
SECTION 78.

I move amendment No. 145:—

Before Section 78 to insert the following new section:—

Where any statutory provision, with respect to charges for or in connection with the carriage of merchandise or passengers by the dissolved railway company, which is in force immediately before the establishment date authorises, for the purposes of calculation of distance, a special mileage to be allotted in respect of any portion of the railway of the dissolved railway company, that statutory provision shall continue in force, and the references therein to the dissolved railway company shall on and after the establishment date be construed as references to the company.

This provision is the same as that contained in Section 32 of the Railways Act of 1924. It was omitted during the drafting of the Bill through an oversight.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 146:—

In sub-section (2), line 54, to insert the words "be or" after the word "may".

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 147 not moved.
Section 78, as amended, agreed to.
Section 79 agreed to.
Amendment No. 148 not moved.
Section 80 agreed to.
SECTION 81.
Amendments Nos. 149, 150 and 151 not moved.

I move amendment No. 152:—

In sub-section (2), (c), line 14, to delete the words "persons interested" and substitute the words "interested persons".

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 81, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 153 not moved.
Sections 82 to 84, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 not moved.
Section 85 agreed to.
Amendment No. 156 not moved.
Section 86 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 not moved.
Section 87 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.
Section 88 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 not moved.
Section 89 agreed to.
SECTION 90.

I move amendment No. 163:—

Before Section 90 and in Chapter VI of Part IV to insert the following new section:—

In this Chapter—

the word "canal" means—

(a) in relation to the Grand Canal Company, the Grand Canal,

(b) in relation to the company, the Royal Canal,

(c) in relation to the commissioners, the River Shannon Navigation excluding so much of the River Shannon as lies between Baal's (or Ball's) Bridge on the Abbey River in the City of Limerick and the sea;

the expression "canal undertaker" means any body being—

(a) the Grand Canal Company,

(b) the company, or

(c) the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland acting for the Minister;

the expression "the commissioners" means the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland;

the expression "the revised canal classification of merchandise" means, in relation to a canal undertaker, the classification of merchandise applicable to that undertaker, as determined by the Minister under Section — of this Chapter;

the expression "revised schedule of maximum canal charges" means, in relation to a canal undertaker, the schedule of charges of that undertaker as settled by the Minister under Section — of this Chapter.

This amendment is intended to replace the original Section 90. It makes no change, but it puts the definitions in alphabetical order and provides definitions for the revised canal classification of merchandise and the revised schedule of maximum canal charges which are required under two further amendments that I propose to move.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 90 not moved.
SECTION 91.

I move amendment No. 164:—

In sub-section (1), line 43, to delete the word "Part" and substitute the word "Chapter".

This is to rectify a printing error.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 165:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert the following sub-section:—

(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall, as respects any particular canal undertaker, cease to be in force as on and from the date on which the revised schedule of maximum canal charges of that undertaker comes into operation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 166:—

To delete sub-section (2).

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 91, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

On this section I desire to say that there is nothing in the Bill to inform members of the House of the improvements, if any, that are going to take place in our canal system. I should like to know from the Minister is that system to continue in its present state? It is not a credit to the country, and should be improved. The lock system, the cleaning of the canals and boat facilities for traders require attention, and there is nothing in this Bill to say whether the canals will be worked in their present oldfashioned way or in an up-to-date manner. If we are, by passing the measure as it stands, to approve of lock-keepers being paid 30/- a week——

There is nothing in this Bill about the working of the canals.

Are we going to approve of the payment of 30/- a week——

This Bill deals with another company.

The whole canal system is to be controlled.

Only in relation to charges.

The Royal Canal is mentioned here.

Only in relation to charges.

The charges should be sufficient to pay our workers a decent wage and not have people writing and saying that lock-keepers are appointed only as a matter of commiseration. Men should not be paid a wage of 18/-, £1 and 32/- a week, which is the maximum. If the charges are not sufficient to enable the Minister or this new board to pay the men decent wages, they should get powers to enable them to do so. I have here a letter——

I submit that this is entirely irrelevant.

You are not Ceann Comhairle.

I am afraid the Deputy is out of order. He may deal with the question of charges but not with the question of employment.

We are dealing with charges here. Are the charges sufficient to enable the company to pay a decent wage or are they such as to permit only of the payment of a starvation wage?

The Deputy may deal with the question of charges but he must not deal with consequential matters.

If the charges are not sufficient to enable the board to pay decent wages to their workers, we should do something to enable them to get sufficient income to do so and not have directors or secretaries writing to members of this House and saying that lock-keepers are only kept on by way of commiseration.

That matter must be raised in another way.

I shall put it in another way.

Nobody here is responsible for the matter to which the Deputy is referring and it is entirely irrelevant. It is a stunt.

We are dealing with canals in this Bill and we should get the Minister——

The Deputy must obey the ruling of the Chair.

——to use his influence to see that decent wages are paid to lock-keepers.

Section 91, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 92.

I move amendment No. 167:—

Before Section 92 to insert the following new section:—

(1) A canal undertaker may and, if required by the Minister shall, within such time as the Minister may appoint, submit to the Minister a proposal for the revised classification of merchandise for the purposes of the application to such merchandise of rates of charges to be made by that canal undertaker in respect of the carriage of merchandise by the canal of that canal undertaker, and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) that canal undertaker shall publish the said proposal in such manner as the Minister may direct;

(b) the Minister, if he thinks fit, may refer the said proposal to the advisory committee for their report and advice thereon;

(c) the Minister, after consideration of the said proposal, any representations made by interested persons and, in case the said proposal has been referred to the advisory committee, their report and advice, shall determine the classification of merchandise applicable to that undertaker for the said purpose.

(2) The revised classification of merchandise applicable to a canal undertaker shall not come into operation until the revised schedule of maximum canal charges of that canal undertaker has come into operation.

The provision which it is proposed to make is identical with that for revised classification of merchandise applicable to the new company in respect of railways. The introduction of the new classification may be either on the initiative of the canal undertaker or the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Publication of the proposals is required and the matter may be referred to the advisory committee. The present classification of canal traffic is 50 years old and no machinery for revising it was provided in legislation previously. It is desired to take advantage of this Bill to provide the necessary machinery.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 168:—

Before Section 92 to insert the following new section:—

(1) At any time after the revised canal classification of merchandise applicable to a canal undertaker has been settled by the Minister, that canal undertaker may and, if required by the Minister, shall, within such time as the Minister may appoint, submit to the Minister a revised schedule, drawn up in such manner as the Minister may direct, of the maximum rates, tolls and charges proposed to be made by that canal undertaker and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) that canal undertaker shall publish the said schedule in such manner as the Minister may direct;

(b) the Minister, if he thinks fit, may refer the said schedule to the advisory committee for their report and advice thereon;

(c) the Minister, after consideration of the said schedule, any representations made by interested persons and, in case the said schedule has been referred to the advisory committee, their report and advice, shall settle the said schedule and fix the date on which it is to come into force.

(2) As on and from the date on which the revised schedule of maximum canal charges applicable to a canal undertaker comes into operation, the charges appearing therein shall, subject to any alterations made by the Minister under this Chapter, be the maximum charges which that canal undertaker shall be entitled to make for all services in respect of which the said charges are fixed.

This section provides for a revision of the schedule of charges applicable to the revised classification dealt with in the previous section.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 169:—

Before Section 92 to insert the following new section:—

(1) Where an application, in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars, is made, by any canal undertaker or by any body of traders using the canal of that canal undertaker, to the Minister for an Order altering the canal classification of merchandise for the time being applicable to that canal undertaker, the Minister, if he thinks fit, may subject to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act, by Order make such alterations of the said classification as he thinks fit.

(2) In this section the word "altering" in relation to the canal classification of merchandise for the time being applicable to a canal undertaker includes altering the classification of any article and classifying any article not for the time being classified, and the word "alterations" shall be construed accordingly.

This proposed section provides for alteration of canal classification of merchandise applicable to a canal undertaker, and is similar to the provision in Section 70 in respect of alteration of railway classification of merchandise applicable to the new company. Having got our new classification, we are taking power to amend the classification. The Seventh Schedule provides the procedure which must be followed.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 170:—

In lines 4 and 5, to delete the words "charged by that canal undertaker" and substitute the words "for the time being chargeable by that canal undertaker in respect of the canal of that undertaker".

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 92, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 93.

I move amendment No. 171:—

Before Section 93 to insert the following new section:—

If any charge made by a canal undertaker in respect of the canal of that undertaker includes a fraction of a penny, the fraction if less than one half-penny shall not be charged or, if it amounts to one half-penny or more, it may be charged as one penny.

We are proposing to put this provision in another place. It is a rearrangement of sections rather than an alteration of the provisions.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 94.

I move amendment No. 172:—

Before Section 94, and in Chapter VII of Part IV, to insert the following new section:—

(1) Where—

(a) a transport undertaker agrees with a trader for the carriage of any of his merchandise at certain rates and subject to certain conditions (which said rates and conditions are in this section referred to as agreed charges), and

(b) the agreed charges are, on the application of the transport undertaker, approved by the Minister under this section,

then, so long as the agreed charges are operative, the transport undertaker may, notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding Chapters of this Part or in any other enactment, make as respect the trader the agreed charges.

(2) The following provisions shall apply in relation to an application to the Minister for his approval of agreed charges, that is to say:—

(a) the application shall contain particulars of the agreed charges,

(b) the applicant shall publish, in accordance with the directions of the Minister, notice of the application and particulars as to the time and manner in which objections may be made to the Minister in respect of the application by any traders who consider that their businesses will be detrimentally affected if the Minister approves of the agreed charges and the agreed charges are made,

(c) The Minister may, if he thinks fit, refer the application to the advisory committee for their report,

(d) the Minister, after consideration of the application, any objections duly made in relation to the application, and, in case he has referred the application to the advisory committee, their report and advice, may, subject to paragraph (e) of this sub-section, approve or refuse to approve of the agreed charges,

(e) the Minister shall not approve of the agreed charges unless he is satisfied that they represent a reasonable commutation of the rates and charges otherwise ordinarily applicable to the applicant's carryings of the merchandise of the trader concerned.

(3) Where the Minister approves of agreed charges he shall fix the date on which they are to come into operation and the period for which they are to remain in operation, and the agreed charges shall come into operation accordingly and shall remain in operation only for the period so fixed unless continued for any further period or periods by the Minister who is hereby authorised in that behalf.

(4) Where agreed charges as between a transport undertaker and a trader have been approved by the Minister, the Minister may, on his own initiative or on the application made, within 12 months after such approval, by any other trader who satisfies the Minister that the applicant's business has been detrimentally affected by the agreed charges and after considering any representations made by the transport undertaker and in case he has referred (which he is hereby authorised to do) the application to the advisory committee, their report and advice, by order fix on the same basis as the agreed charges the charges (including the conditions to be attached thereto) to be made by the transport undertaker for the carriage of such merchandise of the applicant as the Minister may determine, and shall by the order fix the period (which shall not exceed that for which the agreed charges are to remain in operation) during which the order is to remain in operation, and such order shall authorise, notwithstanding anything contained in the previous Chapters of this Part or in any other enactment, and oblige the transport undertaker to make while the order is in force charges for the carriage of merchandise of the applicant in accordance with the terms of the order.

(5) The transport undertaker concerned shall cause particulars of any agreed charges or charges fixed by order under sub-section (4) of this section to be available for public inspection at the head office of the transport undertaker and such other places as the Minister may require.

(6) If a transport undertaker fails to comply with sub-section (5) of this section the transport undertaker shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds and, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding five pounds for every day on which the offence is continued.

(7) In this section the expression "transport undertaker" means any body being—

(a) a railway company,

(b) the company, or

(c) a canal undertaker.

This amendment relates to agreed rates or, as they might be more appropriately described, flat rates. The provisions which we are proposing to insert here are similar to, though not identical with, those contained in the British Act of 1933 which are used extensively in Great Britain. However, they differ quite considerably from the uniform rates for which provision was made in the Railways Act, 1933. These rates were never applied except for a short period in respect of turf. That was not a very satisfactory experience. These proposals will, probably, apply to large traffics such as sugar and cement and commodities of that kind which are compact and of uniform quality. The operation of such charges would, probably, be attractive to companies engaged in the manufacture of goods of that kind, because they would enable them to dispense with a great deal of book-keeping and would facilitate the maintenance of uniform prices throughout the country. From the point of view of the operator of transport services, it has always been difficult to make good the flat rate charges on the shorter mileages. They are availed of on the longer mileages but, on the shorter mileages, they were not availed of and the goods went by road. The purpose of the amendment is to permit of agreed charges of that kind even though, on the shorter mileages, the charges may work out higher than the maximum under other provisions of the Bill relating to charges. The agreed charges must be submitted to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and there is specific provision that he must not approve unless he is satisfied that they represent a "reasonable" commutation of the rates and charges otherwise ordinarily applicable to the applicants' carryings of the merchandise of the trader concerned". In other words, it is intended that, even though the charge per mile may be higher than the maximum over the shorter distances and much below the maximum over the longer distances, on the average they should represent the same charge per mile as the maximum charges in operation in the ordinary way.

The Minister referred to experiments along these lines when it was arranged that turf should be carried at a standard rate of 6/per ton from any part of the country. About a year or 18 months after that, when an application was before the Railway Tribunal for a continuance of that charge, the case was made that that charge of 6/- might be reduced to 4/-, with certain zoning arrangements. I should like to know whether the Minister has, with the Minister for Agriculture, gone into any aspect of the policy involved or whether this is simply a permissive provision, without any consideration of policy.

It is intended to be permissive.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again later.
Top
Share